Opinion: Media, Social Or Not, Does Not Cause Change Options

[Ruud]

My Word: The technological revolution speaks about how the situation in Iran is now so different because of Twitter. It's different from back then when we had just some TV -- and not even live sat TV either.

I was a kid "back then" so I wouldn't know but my guess is that the folks back then were looking in amazement at the TV, saying; isn't it amazing we can see this -- this must certainly change things!

In a deaf world radio was born one day. You didn't merely read about what happened somewhere -- you could hear it! Imagine!

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" -- the newspaper through mass printing and the use of cutting edge technology such as wired reports (telegraphy) ... now THAT was world changing ...

...

Somehow "awareness" is mistaken for actual change. It seems based on an extremely "nurture vs nature" world view; if only people would have more/faster information well *then* ....

Recommended: What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?

[AbleReach]

A few years back, after hearing horrific reports about the 2001 Gujarat earthquake on NPR news, I was up late and bopping around between Yahoo chat rooms. I couldn't sleep and needed to unwind. I saw that someone posted about not being able to sleep because of worry over the quake. I pmed. It ended up that, at least according to what he said, he was college age, in India with family in the Gujarat area, and had not heard from them yet.

He kept repeating "how do you know about us?" He couldn't believe that Americans would care enough about India to do more than a brief report on the quake, and he wanted details. Had I seen pictures? What kid of coverage was there?

I repeated a story I'd heard on the news about an elderly couple who were spending the night on their roof when the quakes started. They struggled to hold hands and keep from being separated as their building pancaked, but after the quake the husband was left to tell the tale and the wife had slipped out of his grasp and been swallowed by rubble. I told him it brought tears to my eyes.

Then, he repeated, a few times, "you cried for us?" And eventually, "you will think of us?" And later "thank you."

The Internet changes things, maybe not in the sense of issues, but I sincerely believe that issues can soften as we see each other as more human.

This post has been edited by AbleReach: Jun 20 2009, 10:47 PM

[SEOigloo]

Ruud -
Great topic. I'll have to agree with Liz on this, though. TV, and the Internet, have changed me by showing me a broader scope of humanity than I could meet with in my daily life. Being able to watch, in color, the daily concerns of people in Mexico, Peru, India, China, Canada...these things help me try to determine how to live, what to eat, what to buy, who to pray for. Surely, that must be, in some small way, changing the world.

[dazzlindonna]

Actually Ruud, I believe that radio and television were the very beginnings of change, whether or not we realize it. At that point, we could become aware of some of the things going on in places we didn't know about. Still, it was a one-way medium and we were dependent upon the broadcasters and reporters to push the information to us. Their view became our view. We could see and feel compassion or anger or whatever emotion but it was usually brief and the "real world" came back in a hurry.

The Internet has taken that one-way medium and turned it on its ear. Now we actually communicate with people all around the world on a daily basis. Even without "big news" making its way to us via Twitter and such, the everyday normalities of life of traded between us.

And frankly, for those who ask why do I care what breakfast someone says they had via Twitter...

That's why.

The everyday trivialities of life - shared between people of different faiths, cultures, countries, races, etc. - help us all understand one another as HUMAN BEINGS rather than as Christians or Muslims or Indians or Chinese or any other description that really isn't much of a description at all of the entire being.

Once we begin to communicate with one another over the trivial bits of life, it is a lot harder to ignore the big issues that crop up. The "brief emotions" we once felt (and I don't mean that to be considered bad - we felt what we felt and it was sincere), are now being replaced by emotions, just as sincere, but bigger and longer and more personal. It hits home more because we actually "KNOW" people from various places around the world now.

It's similar in my mind to how people CHANGE their attitudes about gays once they realize that they've actually KNOWN AND LOVED some all their lives. Once it became personal for them - once they realized that their preconceived notions didn't stand up when applied to HUMANS they actually KNEW and communicated with - those notions could change.

Now that we can KNOW and COMMUNICATE with HUMANS around the globe about normal, everyday, personal things - our notions and emotions CHANGE when applied to those who are now in our own personal world.

Social Media opens up our personal worlds and allows our personal human contact to expand into areas never imagined. Our emotions change. Our preconceived notions change. Change happens.

That's my belief, anyhow.

[cre8pc]

I hear you Ruud!

I've been researching human behavior and the Internet, human evolution and the Internet/social networking and tracking anything related.

The Impact Of The Internet On Human Behavior is one of the pieces, as well as others in the SELand archives that I wrote. I'm fascinated by what's happening.

Scientists are curious about how our brains are changing physically as we're more dependent on computer technology. Everything is being looked at, including differences in gender and any changes.

We do change. Maybe the better word is adapt. I was thinking yesterday at how much effort we put into keeping the house at the right temperature for the humans and pets in it, as well as trying to avoid mold from all the humidity. We're getting too much rain and the humidity is out of sight.

Today, we have access to electric fans and air conditioners and heat. I found myself imagining the house without the A/C or fans. Would I be cooking outside more? Would we sleep outside? Would we work at night and sleep off the heat in the daytime? We would likely have wall to wall carpeting and the furniture we have now because keeping it clean and safe would be difficult without temperature controls. I'd be grumpy as heck from the humidity, LOL

I do believe that media causes change on a larger scale. I can only imagine how Woodstock would have played out if Twitter was around then. Someone would tweet "fences are down!" and that would be it. As it was, they closed the main NY highway because word of mouth was so intense. It wasn't a free concert. Most had tickets. But the moment it went over capacity and it was open to everyone, word traveled fast. Not to mention there were 3 days, so if you could get there at all, you could catch some of it.

We do have emotional reactions to what we see on the news. I remember how strange it was to be watching the Iran/Iraq war on TV in the early 1990's. Today, this is consider normal but back then, it felt odd and was upsetting to turn on the TV and see so much violence. This type of access to "live" news has to be messing with our emotional bodies.

I also believe that large numbers of people are seeking ways to de-stress, calm down, find their center, and find answers that make sense to them via religion and spirituality. Whatever form it comes in, people need the spiritual side. I think we're naturally spiritual beings, so it's not hard to reason that the more technial our lives become, the more we desire and demand nourishment for the soul.

What's curious is that as humans, we're not stopping growth in technology and science. Physics is huge. I ponder how we're claiming to be tired and over stimulated, but we still demand bigger TV's and more powerful computers that can be taken with us wherever we go.

I think our opinions, as tech folks, will be different than our friends and family who don't live and breathe social networking. My friends don't know what Twitter is and they don't want to.

They may be the sane ones

[swainzy]

I will mention too, that previous to the net and when phone lines were down in a country or state, ham radio operators filled the gap and patched phone lines. My dad won an award from our county for helping people in the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. He was a ham radio operatpr and I still have his lisence plate with his call letters on it. : )


It's pretty wonderful that people reach out to each other via the social networks in times of trouble. I agree that if we know others know about our situation and can relate, it bridges a gap btw people. I liked your story Liz. Nice that you reached out to people.

I read where there are more bloggers in Iran per capita than any other country.

[Ruud]

So the media we use changes the way we perceive or interact with the content coming through it. It heightens our awareness, increases our sensitivity. It can help build empathy and sympathy.

On a personal level: does that constitute change? Were you less sensitive, less aware, less sympathetic, less empathic before you went on the web? Is what we see simply a case of feeling involved with whatever the spotlight is on?

On society's level -- does it cause change? The protests on Tiananmen Square were televised. Live.

Today that very same government is firmly in place.

The protests in Iran are Twittered & Youtubed ... real time or near real time. So?

The support we express through media participation can send the wrong signals. It can suggest to people sitting unarmed in a square somewhere that the world is supporting them -- which may be true only on a very abstract level. The presence of media, of the world watching, up to and including the deployment of UN blue helmets, is not a safeguard.

In 1991, to name but one example, it was a split within the military that caused Russia's Gang of Eight coup to collapse; not international media presence.

The State, whatever its legitimacy, has the monopoly on the use of effective, deadly force. Unless the chain of command breaks and sufficiently large parts of that apparatus break away, change can not be forced as long as the State is willing to use force and those who execute it are willing to obey.

Media, social or not, does not cause the change.

[dazzlindonna]

I still believe it does have an impact on change, but it happens slowly and is not obvious at the time. I think core beliefs undergo a change once we interact with others who are "different" than we are used to interacting with. Those core beliefs may actually take years to take root and spread, so the slow changes aren't noticed right away. But yes, I think that the interaction/awareness of others outside our norm do have an impact on change, and if media of whatever sort gives us that interaction and awareness then it plays a part in creating that change.

Yes, regimes may still be in power years later, but that doesn't mean that change isn't taking root and growing.

[Walter]

Hello All,

At the risk of jumping into water way over my head...


Rudd I have often wondered if all this empathy for people and problems so far away and in situations that we can barely hope to have an impact on, even at minimal level, dosen't incline us toward ignoring people and situations much closer that we might indeed be able to have a positive impact on...provided that the effort, risks, and etc were taken. Does it act like a palative for our failure to engage those situations in the here and now, with the added benefit of not demanding that serious efforts and risks be taken? If we feel symathetic for the situation in Iran, honestly what does that sympathetic feeling actually require of us...damn little I think. Is it possible that given our exposure to so many sympathetic situations we have become in some ways callous? Not so hardened that we don't feel sympathy, but that we fail to act with sympathy?

You make the point well when you mention the Tianamern Square incident. Lots of sympathetic feelings but no change. You also mention that "this can send the wrong signals". But how? Honestly is it any surprise that people directly involved in these life/death situations find it difficult to understand how we can [i]feel[u] so much sympathy without acting in any meaningful way on that emotion? Is there a backlash of negative feeling towards us when the dust settles, lives have been lost and we've failed to act in any substantive way? Can we blame them?

The State, whatever its legitimacy, has the monopoly on the use of effective, deadly force. Unless the chain of command breaks and sufficiently large parts of that apparatus break away, change can not be forced as long as the State is willing to use force and those who execute it are willing to obey.

I wonder about that..is it the lack of power inherent in the populace as oppossed to the power of the state that prevents change or the lack of the will by a sufficient number of the populace to endure the risk and discomfort required for that change? In the end its people that "use the force and execute it" people that come from the populace. Are these people so different from the populace that birthed them?

I don't know Rudd, to me at its very best, social media is a neutral tool. With the potential to be used for good or ill. My concern is that all too often it provides a means of "feeling" human without the need of acting "human".

And it creates a lot of spam too.


Walter

[glyn]

Fundamentally the functioning of western societies has been based on individualistic consumer principles, driven by a generalizability about human nature - "you are person type A, and respond therefore to product type A". Social Media Networks and computer mediated communication have inserted a level of ambivalence in our interpretive framework of the labelling process we as human beings have been made to accept historically - compare the controls that could be placed on radio, TV and print with the controls on Twitter, Blogosphere and webpace - and show that in fact we shouldn't generalize about human beings (......couldn't believe that Americans would care enough about India to do more than a brief report on the quake......). By contrast for examples other cultures that have a more collectivist foundation - family values and patriarchal - interestingly are more in-tune with other people's perspectives even if this does not preclude ego-centric behaviours from taking place in these cultures.

The case of Iran is a difficult issue to study objectively - a) there is a block on western media reporting in Iran, which I think could go some way to explaining why in this case Social Media is being leveraged as a reporting tool and given so much profile by the mainstream news. B) there is a history of terse relations US-IRAN thus making the actual interpretation of news a question of potentially setting one propaganda machine off one-another and c) a question must be raised about the user profile of Social Media Networks and whether they represent an accurate voice of a global population. History will provide us with the answers.

This is a rationalizing framework I wanted to bring to this debate as it is something that I am currently interested in and wanted to provide my thoughts.

To be clear all human suffering is something that has to be stopped in whatever way possibe.

Glyn.

This post has been edited by glyn: Jun 22 2009, 02:28 AM

[A.N.Onym]

Let's compare:
- an offline event to a website or a landing page
- media channels to sources of traffic
- lots of attention to website traffic
- a significant change as a conversion

What essentially missing from the piece are:
- compelling content, listing the benefits for the change
- a call to action or two
- a clear navigation path

In essence, all this noise is just thousands of visitors to a page with a brief description of an event. No matter how touching the event is, if there are no benefits listed, nor a clear conversion path with a call to action, all the attention in the world won't change anything.

Of course, there may be occurances, where the government or top execs are forced to punish someone, who's been spotted red handed. But they do it more to cover their own asses and to pretend to be doing something, rather than showing it as a sign of having been changed.

One example I can recall is when people commented on Medvedev's blog that WWII veterans weren't allowed to visit a fallen soldiers memorial on the Victory Day, he issued a decree to fix stuff, punish people and report in 3 days (he posted a scanned decree on the blog himself). Of course, no one got punished, 50 days later, the memorial is still being on renovation, but at least it got Medvedev's attention and it got *some* movement of local authorities. Clearly, attention from anyone *acting* gets *something* done, but attention alone isn't enough.

This case was and still is wildly televised, but it appears things aren't moving faster, than they typically do. Lots of attention. The only diff is that first Medvedev saw and acted on a single blog comment and only then did the media pick up the news and started monitoring it.

Compare all the above to a presidential campaign.

The candidates spew benefits left and right.
There's a clear conversion path.
The event has a crystal clear goal with only few options (or one option, if we consider a candidates campaign).
All this is accompanied with lots of attention/traffic.

That's what gets people acting and that's what changes the country/ies.

This post has been edited by A.N.Onym: Jun 22 2009, 11:27 PM

[SEOigloo]

I will mention too, that previous to the net and when phone lines were down in a country or state, ham radio operators filled the gap and patched phone lines. My dad won an award from our county for helping people in the 1964 Alaskan earthquake.

Donna -
That's a great story. I'd never heard of that before. Write that up in your memoirs!

It can suggest to people sitting unarmed in a square somewhere that the world is supporting them -- which may be true only on a very abstract level.

Ruud -
That is so sad, but I bet you are right about this. How awful.

Today that very same government is firmly in place.

You are right, but short of outside countries overthrowing the Chinese government (no, no no!) there really isn't anything to be done in terms of displacing the powers that be from the outside. That would be up to the people living there. What outsiders COULD do in that situation is refuse to trade with the offending government. And the pressure for something like that would come from the people, who could be mobilized by Social Media, which, like the telephone, is simply a tool for communication.

[Ruud]

I think that the interaction/awareness of others outside our norm do have an impact on change, and if media of whatever sort gives us that interaction and awareness then it plays a part in creating that change

The Melting Pot principle, no? But aren't we seeing those people blend together who would have blend together anyway?

Maybe The Problem is not based on the quantity and quality of information exposure available to people....

Is it possible that given our exposure to so many sympathetic situations we have become in some ways callous? Not so hardened that we don't feel sympathy, but that we fail to act with sympathy?

In reaction to a thought provoking report which suggests our current media interactions moves too fast for us to develop and experience the proper emotional reactions, Jamais Cascio blogged a wonderful post about Continuous Partial Empathy:

What Damasio's work suggests to me is that there's a point where an insufficient amount of attention given to a potentially moving encounter means that little or no empathy--compassion or admiration--will result. And while paying attention to another person is important, offering empathy is much more critical. Social numbness simply can't be healthy for a functioning society.

For more than a decade, tech pundits and business consultants have gone on about the "attention economy," arguing that attention has economic value due to its limited availability. It strikes me that this may miss the greater point. From a social perspective, what's limited isn't attention, but consideration. Not just hearing, but listening. Not just seeing a message, but understanding its meaning.

It may be worth considering how we'd structure our digital world if the point wasn't just to "pay attention," but to "give consideration."

Related thread: Empahty, the Internet & Us

I believe that social media reality can become a theatre of make-believe acts, of surrogates for actual acting, and that through its collective experience those involved with it are unaware of the fact that for all sense and purposes they're not actually doing something.

It's that sense of "the times they are a changing" that can be so dangerous because most likely they're not....

Don't get me wrong; it's a good beginning ... but it shouldn't end there.

is it the lack of power inherent in the populace as oppossed to the power of the state that prevents change or the lack of the will by a sufficient number of the populace to endure the risk and discomfort required for that change? In the end its people that "use the force and execute it" people that come from the populace. Are these people so different from the populace that birthed them?

The famous Stanford Prison Experiment has shown us we follow orders and we follow them up to the point of using deadly force against others. It's very hard for an individual in an army unit to say "no, I'm not going, I'm not doing this".

This is what makes revolutions and counter revolutions such a balance of power. It's usually the people higher in command who will break the chain and set regiments in motion or not. And *they* in turn have to wonder if they'llhave suffient power to enforce their decision, their choice, or that fellow officers will remove them and arrest them...

As for the populace; it's impressive to see the collective fall apart in individual will to survive when you witness a huge angry crowd being brought to a halt by a simple line of blue. Frustrating even, at times. A peleton of riot police can effectively hold back a crowd as long as each member of the crowd remains an individual, concerned for her own well being.

The case of Iran is a difficult issue to study objectively

What's intrigueing is the wide support for an unknown issue in a country many of its virtual supporters do not know very well.

Most likely the cause has become singular now; simplified into the extreme. Votes wrongly counted (must be the wrong thing) so other must have won (must be the right thing). Where most of us have a hard time listing the 3 major issue the prime minister of England stands for or which 3 major issues the German bundeskansler opposes, we now seem to at least be aware of what an oppostion leader in a middle eastern country stands for. Or against. Either way, we seem to know Mousavi is the best thing since sliced bread for Iran -- or we don't care what he stands for because the ONLY thing that counts is The Vote.

(Note: for history's sake and to prevent moot discussions, I'm not arguing either for/against)

Yura -- *love* the parallels you make.

What outsiders COULD do in that situation is refuse to trade with the offending government. And the pressure for something like that would come from the people, who could be mobilized by Social Media, which, like the telephone, is simply a tool for communication.

I do tend to believe that either force or (better) economic tools bring about change. Unfortunately the *best* economic change agent is capitalism; it's the only system which addresses the benefits of the individual directly.

[A.N.Onym]

I've been reading an article on how the Iranian issue sprung to the Web despite government's best efforts.

It says that videos and photos were widely available on the Internet regardless how hard the Internet and video taking were restricted.

And I thought, "Okay, the world knows what happened/is happening in Iran. So what?".

This post has been edited by A.N.Onym: Jun 23 2009, 06:45 AM

[glyn]

Sorry A.N.Onym I don't get this point about "so what" neither did I understand the point you were trying to make before.

[iamlost]

The various SM applications are simply a subset of communication technology. While all such com tech has leveraged in various ways people's ability to speak/share it does not, it can not, itself cause change. It is but a toolset.

Viet Nam has the distinction of being the first televised war. There was already an anti-war movement. However, same day war and the effects of war, broadcast internationally certainly fed the movements momentum. The abstract was made real, no longer was it confined to those actually there or those they told in person, by phonecall or letter (three traditional com channels), it became broadcast with immediacy (newsreels offered broadcast but not the same immediacy). As was said, war came to the living rooms of America.

The interesting thing (to me) was that this war in the living room did not affect all people the same way - it simply accelerated how soon they made their decision, to support or not. Did all the opposition end the war. No. The country became quite polarised, still suffers a social angst and the economic consequences but the war ended for other reasons than TV coverage or mass anti-war protests.

In Iran the authorities shut down SMS as texting was how the opposition had been communicating during the election. As they did not entirely close web access Twitter became the new com channel. As Twitter is by default broadcast the world came along for the demo. And, as seen in America during the Viet Nam protests, Iran has seen swift polarisation.

What our world wide threaded com channels have increasingly produced is simply change on increasingly fast forward. Media, social or not, as with all communication technology causes nothing and accelerates everything.

[Ruud]

Interesting article. Iran's ability to know very precisely who is doing what, and even to alter messages flowing through the network, keeps me puzzled as to why information is coming out at all. (See; Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology).

And I thought, "Okay, the world knows what happened/is happening in Iran. So what?".

That's the key question, right? What, if anything, would be different if we weren't witnessing these events the way we do?

What effect, if any, does coloring avatars on Twitter green have on what's going on?

[glyn]

"While all such com tech has leveraged in various ways people's ability to speak/share it does not, it can not, itself cause change".

I don't think I agree, if I've read and understood your message correctly....

Take for example the studying human interaction. Technology, in this case forums, has provided researchers with a space to examine the effects of human communication in ways that were previously not possible. This research will feed back into our understanding of human nature and change our pespectives as a result. Thus creating change.

Glyn

[A.N.Onym]

iamlost, that's what I can agree with:
"Media, social or not, as with all communication technology causes nothing and accelerates everything."

glyn, the points I was trying to make in my posts are:
- there need to be obvious reasons for the viewers/listeners/readers to act and a clear way to change the event to the better: otherwise, they remain viewers, not participants
- right now, without a clear action path for the masses, all the information in the world won't change the events itself unless someone *does* something (i.e., people should be able to call some authority in Iran and note their disagreement with election results, demanding a recount, and the authority needs to act accordingly). Otherwise, these protests won't work (if indirectly).
- saying something on the topic, changing avatars to green (or Barry Welford) can only work, if it's directly tied to affecting what other people do or what you do in the event itself. Otherwise, it's just noise.

I agree that technology speeds things up greatly. It might be one of the reasons humans have drifted away from being close to nature and happiness, but it's another topic.

Those affected by the Iranian elections need to:
- act
- motivate and persuade a strong power in Iran to bring fairness and openness to the table
- ask others to do the same

Otherwise, the worlds attention won't help.

There have been numerous cases, where protests didn't help (with only one Indian exception I know) - Viet Nam and Iraq wars among them, and where things happened regardless of mass awareness through the media. If government wants to do something, it does it, unless they see more value in not doing it.

To think about it, there probably were more protests about *starting* an Iraq war, than *stopping* an already started Viet Nam war, but it was still started.

This post has been edited by A.N.Onym: Jun 23 2009, 08:44 AM

[glyn]

What then about groundswell as a feature mobilizing around an issue?

IE that changing people's perceptions can happen over time and may not be directly measurable in the same way that you can say person from Google arrives with keyword and purchase product B (this example just to highlight an equation not to pidgeon-hole what you are saying).

From where I am it seems that you end up ignoring all the other bits that can't be easily measured - the "noise" - which in, in my opinion, is what helps to really understand what the heck is going on.

Thanks for your clarification.
G.